ALBERT COLE AND FRIEDA L. COLE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
KENNETH OKA AS MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BERNARD A. FRANK, MARCIE LIEBERMAN, HAROLD B. SPAET, HAROLD SHAPIRO, MELVIN J. RICHARD, D. LEE POWELL, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1962-10-29
No. 60-608
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and CARROLL, JJ.
145 So. 2d 900 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1962) Caution
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Florida District Court of Appeal vacated its prior judgment and affirmed the circuit court's decree after the Florida Supreme Court quashed the appellate court's reversal. This case illustrates the hierarchical nature of judicial review, where a higher court's decision dictates the outcome for lower courts.


Holding

The District Court of Appeal must vacate its previous judgment and affirm the decree of the circuit court as directed by the Supreme Court.


Key Quotes

“WHEREAS, by mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated October 25, 1962, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendants,”

This quote establishes the Supreme Court's directive to the lower appellate court.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The District Court of Appeal had previously reversed a judgment from the Circuit Court. However, upon review by certiorari, the Florida Supreme Court …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on the 1st day of June, 1961, and amended on the 13th day of July, 1961 (Fla.App. 131 So.2d 757) reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed June 27, 1962 (145 So.2d 233) quashed this court’s judgment of reversal; and

WHEREAS, by mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated October 25, 1962, now lodged in this court, the cause was remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendants,

THEREFORE, it is ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on July 13, 1961, is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed June 1, 1961, and amended July 13, 1961, is vacated, and the decree of the circuit court appealed is affirmed;, costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16 subd. e, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Gulle v. Purley L. Boggs, 174 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1965)
    …imply found as a matter of law that the driver of the forward vehicle was guilty of no negligence but deposited with the jury the problem of liability of two vehicles approaching from the rear. The respondent here seems to rely upon Guelli v. Kraus, 145 So. 2d 900. There, however, in a substantially similar controlling fact situation, the Second District deposited with the jury the problem of deciding liability. We have stated that the presumption announced in McNulty, and subsequently followed, is rebuttabl…
  • Jones v. Stamper, 336 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
    …e where demonstrative evidence is offered, that the object or thing offered for the jury to see be first shown to be the object in issue and that it is in substantially the same condition as at the pertinent time . . .’’(P.791)2 In Guelli v. Kraus, 145 So. 2d 900 (Fla.App.2d 1962), the court, in affirming the trial court which had allowed experts to testify over objections that the examinations, which were made five weeks after the accident, were too removed and remote to have any pertinent bearing on the co…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw